Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Aneeta Leekha vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd on 28 February, 2025

                                                                     CS 816/19



            IN THE COURT OF SH. HARVINDER SINGH JOHAL :
                DISTRICT JUDGE-02 & WAQF TRIBUNAL :
                 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI


CS 816/19

IN THE MATTER OF :

     Aneeta Leekha                                          .....Plaintiff

                                VERSUS

     Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.                               .....Defendant

                                    ORDER

1. At the time of hearing the arguments in the matter, a peculiar situation is faced whereby the present case is filed on 05.11.2019. However, the court lacks inheritance jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

2. The brief facts of the suit is that lease deed entered between the parties, wherein the property bearing no. H-2, Green Park extension, New Delhi was given on rent by plaintiff alongwith four other persons to the defendant bank. As per the lease agreement, it was given for a period from 01.10.2017 to 17.12.2018. There are five lessors in the lease deed, i.e. plaintiff, mother of plaintiff and three brothers of the plaintiff. During the continuation of tenancy, the mother of the plaintiff died on 06.08.2011 and the defendant bank thereafter has not paid her 1/5th share of the rent till conclusion of the lease deed. The present plaint is 1 /3 CS 816/19 filed by the plaintiff seeking her share out of the rent, which was not paid due to the demise of the mother and she is claiming as the LRs of the deceased lessor.

3. At the time of arguments, it came to the notice of this court that the property is commercial property and this dispute is covered within the meaning of "commercial dispute" as defined U/s 2 (1) (c) and by relying upon section 2 (1)(c)(vii) R/w explanation U/s 2(1)(c)(xxii) of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The observation of the court is further supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Jagmohan Behl vs. State Bank of Indore FAP (OS) No. 166/2016, wherein the facts of the present case is in para materia to the decided case by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, where such disputes are defined as commercial dispute.

4. Since the dispute is a commercial dispute and as per Section 6 of The Commercial Courts Act, categorically bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, whereby this case can only be adjudicated by the Commercial Courts.

5. Since commercial dispute is to be adjudicated by Commercial Court.

The present suit is returned to the plaintiff to file it before competent court relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Rajeev Mittal Vs. Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal Corporation 2024 SCC OnLine DEL 4832.

6. The only power vests in this court to deal with such cases is to return the 2 /3 CS 816/19 plaint. Accordingly, plaint is returned.

Announced in the open court on (Harvinder Singh Johal) 28.02.2005 DJ-02 & Waqf Tribunal NDD/PHC/ND/ 28.02.2025 3 /3